This test may be cut.
On 18 August 2014 01:57, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
Or just sort your messages in subject/date order and read each
message in whatever order you like. ... except for people like Huw
who embed their replies. :)
But in any case, it is nothing to do with xmca.
Some messages put coloured lines on the left, some put grey lines
on the left and some put >s on the left. It is hard to tell by
looking, but I think it is the email client of the first responder
which formats the next layer of indenting, resulting in mixtures
of the 3 different modes in any given message on occasion.
Huw Lloyd wrote:
On 17 August 2014 19:20, David H Kirshner <firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for your insightful post.
In scrolling down below your message, to recover the
context, I was
faced--as all of us so often are--with the garbling effect
that comes from
use of the ">" program that separates out the various
response by inserting a new level of ">" for each new message.
That formatting option may serve a valuable function in
case two or more
authors are replying to each other with comments embedded
in the prior
text. But that kind of communicative format is not used
and even when it is, the line-break function of the
program tends to
fragment sentences to the point of incoherence (see below).
Actually embedded replies are used frequently and productively
I suspect this format continues to be in popular use
because people who
use it feel a sense of comfort with the tradition of usage
functionality concerns, or perhaps they just don't know
how to change
Are there other reasons?
The email software conventions programmed into email clients
indent the content of email that is replied to. Overriding
this by not
indenting old text would be unusual.
Text formats etc are usually filterable by the mail server.
the mail server can also perform simple functions such as
cutting all text
below a specially marked piece of text (e.g:
http://www.redmine.org/issues/4409) to help prevent very long